The QST review of the FTDX3000 produced mixed results for receiver transmitter performance.

Disappointments were the poor transmitter IMD and the poor transmitter composite noise figures. If the FTDX3000 uses the same design techniques as the FT5000 its hard to understand why the compositenoise figure is so bad.

The other receiver numbers look good on the FTDX3000 which why the composite noise figure is such a mystery. Whether this matters to you depends on your location, noise floor, antennas and operating styles.

P3 PAN adapter is a very useful piece of kit. The resolution bandwidth and general performance is unequaled at the moment. Its hard to imagine why Yaesu put in such a lousy small screen on the FTDX3000 and one has to shake ones head about the crap bandscope on the FTDX5000.

If Elecraft introduced the K4 with 200 watts and a built in big screen pan adapter that would be the radio for me. Yaesu and Icom seem good at producing crippled radios rather than delivering excellent performance in all aspects of their designs.

The QST review of the FTDX3000 produced mixed results for receiver transmitter performance.

Disappointments were the poor transmitter IMD and the poor transmitter composite noise figures. If the FTDX3000 uses the same design techniques as the FT5000 its hard to understand why the compositenoise figure is so bad.

The other receiver numbers look good on the FTDX3000 which why the composite noise figure is such a mystery. Whether this matters to you depends on your location, noise floor, antennas and operating styles.

P3 PAN adapter is a very useful piece of kit. The resolution bandwidth and general performance is unequaled at the moment. Its hard to imagine why Yaesu put in such a lousy small screen on the FTDX3000 and one has to shake ones head about the crap bandscope on the FTDX5000.

If Elecraft introduced the K4 with 200 watts and a built in big screen pan adapter that would be the radio for me. Yaesu and Icom seem good at producing crippled radios rather than delivering excellent performance in all aspects of their designs.

On the surface, this seems like a fair comparison, but these are two fundamentally different radios in completely different operating classes. If you like one, you probably won't like the other. The K3 is engineered for raw performance under very specific (crowded) conditions in a portable package. The fit and finish is not the same as the JA radios (although I really like the ergonomics of my K3). It's smaller and lighter than the FTDX-3000 in addition to the difference in performance numbers. For me, the K3 was a no-brainer even versus the very similar and very competitively-priced TS-590S. I would never use the bells and whistles ("features" you called them) of the FTDX-3000.

P3 PAN adapter is a very useful piece of kit. The resolution bandwidth and general performance is unequaled at the moment. Its hard to imagine why Yaesu put in such a lousy small screen on the FTDX3000 and one has to shake ones head about the crap bandscope on the FTDX5000.

I agree that the P3 is a nice addition, but IMHO performance of the P3 is EXCEEDED if you include consideration of PC-based spectrum scopes. I considered the P3 seriously, but ended up buying the LP-PAN2 unit instead. All in, it cost $380 (not counting the investment in a PC), compared to $700 plus shipping for the P3. The result is a stunningly beautiful and detailed display, as large as your monitor, with many rig control function now enabled by mouse clicks. The much faster frame update rate of the LP-PAN2 is also significant. Of course, it isn't as "plug-n-play" and the P3, but setup was not difficult. It's a great value, and better performance. It's hard to appreciate the difference that the larger display makes until you see it.

However, as the P3 is not crystal controlled, it does have the advantage in ability to connect to different receivers (though still only one at a time). The LP-PAN has slots for two crystals, and those crystals are not easy to find for all radios.

I ended up getting the yaesu... It really just boiled down to price / feature / performance. The yaesu had more friendly features, with relative similar performance for my needs and was considerably less in cost equally equipped. I am astonished how much better the rig is over my ic7000. I also can't believe how quiet it is and can pill in signals with such little rf gain! The noise reduction is also amazing. The only feature I am disappointed in is the noise blanketer. It's just about useless for aggressive electrical noise like high power lines which I have near me. Honestly the ic7000 NB is far superior.... Everything else I love...

I probably would have went with the k3 if all was equal but I understand the k3 is a true contesting rig with no frills and what was important to me was not equal thus the yaesu won out for me... To each is own..

Have to agree with Dale on that. I owned a K3 and just didn't like the compact physical design of the unit and replaced it with an FTDX-5000. Typical of Yaesu rigs in recent years, it had some serious problems when sending CW (variable length dits, and a couple of other things). After some time, Yaesu offered a fix but that required you to pay shipping both ways to the west coast. One fellow who had Yaesu fix his 5000 then reported that you could no longer operate QSK above 20 wpm after the fix was applied. If you're considering the Yaesu 3000, and will ever operate CW with it, I'd suggest that you first listen to the 3000's CW signal on a separate receiver (do NOT trust what you hear in the sidetone) and make sure the keying is what it should be. That's best seen on a scope or capture of the monitor receiver audio so that you can examine spacing and duration of code elements with an audio file editor.

On the other hand, an early problem I experienced with the K3 resulted in them sending me a replacement card which fixed the problem at very little cost to me. Same with my current Tentec transceiver.

The first time you require company support or repair, you'll wish you had the American made K3.

Dale W4OP

Give the guy a break. So he didn't pick your favorite rig and validate your decision. No need to give him a hard time about that. Hams like you have such fragile egos that if someone does not pick YOUR favorite rig, you then trash everyone else's decision.

The first time you require company support or repair, you'll wish you had the American made K3.

Dale W4OP

Give the guy a break. So he didn't pick your favorite rig and validate your decision. No need to give him a hard time about that. Hams like you have such fragile egos that if someone does not pick YOUR favorite rig, you then trash everyone else's decision.

Yes, ergonomics (look and fell) are important to many as well. K3 does look pretty plain. I personally have no had a chance to play with a 3000 yet so jury is still out with me.

Logged

--------------------------------------Ham since 1969.... Old School 20wpm REAL Extra Class..

While I do not own a FT-3000 I had a FT-2000 before I purchased my K3. The 2000 was a wonderful SSB rig. I was a terrible CW rig. I have heard hat the CW capabilities of the 3000 is only marginally better.

The K3 is an expensive rig and quite frankly the external package looks like it should cost less than $500. However that's the beauty of it, it just plain works. And works better than any other rig on the market.

The first time you require company support or repair, you'll wish you had the American made K3.

Dale W4OP

I have to agree here. I have been running Elecraft since I bought my second hand K2 a couple of years ago. They simply have the parts and support. The K2 had a couple of significant issues (disclosed by the seller). With the docs and the available parts it now has been repaired and upgraded. This caused me to go K3 and now KX1. The K3 was a kit, but no soldering was necessary. Still nice to know the pieces are available.

Copyright 2000-2018 eHam.net, LLC
eHam.net is a community web site for amateur (ham) radio operators around the world.
Contact the site with comments or questions.
WEBMASTER@EHAM.NETSite Privacy Statement